In a message dated 12/17/00 8:51:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

>
>  > After a statewide count of votes Gore lost, Bush won.
>
>  The actual count was never finalized.

   The initial machine count was statewide and included all but the absentee
ballots.  Bush won.  Don't obfuscate with caveats such as "finalized".  It is
a form of lying (If I might sink to your level:-))

>  >   After a statewide recount of votes, Gore lost, Bush won.
>
>  The recount was never completed, and it was not statewide.

   The state of Florida requires a MANDATORY recount if the margin of victory
is beneath a specific percentage.  It was both completed and statewide.  Bush
won.  Are you lying or applying a unique form of reasoning to assuage your
partisan feelings of failure?

>  >   After a Democrat Party selected recount of heavy Democrat districts,
> Gore
>  >  lost, Bush won.
>
>  Again, this recount was also not completed.

    It was completed to the extend allowable within the timeframe legislated
by the Florida legislature.  Given the chaos created by your Party Democrat
gang-that-couldn't-shoot-straight, I can understand your possible confusion
on this one.

>  >   After Florida Democrat party operatives attempted to implement a
recount
>  >  based on any standard that would give Democrat counters leeway in
> stealing
>  >  votes for Gore, the votes were certified by the state of Florida,
> according
>  >  to Florida law.

>  When you say the word 'stealing,' you are lying.  There was no objection to
>  the standards nvolved, in all cases in which recount were conducted,
however
>  partial, there were observers from both parties.  There were no cases of
>  disagreement at these settings, so the standards were never at issue.
>  Perhaps, if you refrain from calling it, 'stealing,' then other will not
> call
>  you a liar!

     Again, I can understand your partisan and adolescent defensiveness, but
a major problem with the Democrat selected areas for manual recounts was that
one board would count one descriptive type of chad and another board would
not.

>  >    After the Florida Supreme Court stepped in and usurped the authority
of
>  > the legislature the US supreme court chastised them.  Another attempt by
> the
>  >  Florida Supreme court, in conjunction with the Democrat Party, to
subvert
>  > the rule of law was again squelched by the US supreme court.
>
>  Only a loose imagination would consider the Florida Supreme Court of
> usurping
>  their own legislature, what you are referring to is the standard that the
>  Florida Supreme Court stated was appropriate, a very wide standard at that,
>  that each vote should be judged by the voter's intent.  Apparently, you
have
>  a problem with that, as does the US Supreme Court,

    Again, you are confused.  It was the Florida supreme court's interference
with the legislated procedure for certifying the state's votes and altering
the timeframe in which certification should be done that was a usurpation of
legislative authority.  They were attempting to make law.

>  and now the people have a
>  problem with those justices who
>  have in effect negated the intent of the voters and hence rendered all
> voters
>  in the future suspect of whether their vote wil count in the way they
>  intended when they voted.

    Only whining party hacks have a problem with the ruling, and all properly
executed ballots were counted.  Those future voters who are so uncaring or so
incompetent that they do not properly execute their ballot can rest assured
that it will be counted as a non vote -- which it is.

>  Your ignoring of this potentiality by claiming
>  that the US Supreme Court has squelched the Florida Supreme Court and the
>  Democratic Party is nothing but bombast and rhetoric, which I predict will
> be repaid in like to you and yours!

    Well, I don't know what this threat refers to, but if it means I am "on
the opposite team", sorry.  I did not vote for Bush.

>  The US Supreme Court has proven absolutely nothing other than that they are
>  beholden to their appointers,

    I think all were approved by Democrat controlled congresses, and as I
recall, Scalia was passed with 100% Democrat support.  Two of the more
liberal ones were nominated by Republican presidents.

>  that they are thoroughly politicized,

    This is typical American liberal hypocrisy.  The court is only
politicized when it rules against a liberal.  The court is split along
philosophical lines, and that split is sometimes reflected in the way they
vote -- but they would never risk their prestige or historic legacy to help
some two bit politician unfairly win an election.

>  that fairness is not in their repertoire, and that they are not competent
enough
>  to be impartial.

   My dear misguided fellow.  The courts are about the law, not about
fairness.
Yours,
Issodhos